MH17 Ukraine disaster: Dutch report blames missile

a reply to: RogueWave

I'm sure some of the footage will be found online, but of course anything which they have received and is related to the investigation will not be published.
Maybe after a few years when the investigation is fully concluded.

nm

a reply to: earthling42

Right, so you are making an argument based on sources that you can't verify. Can you post a link to the story based on these sources then?

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Hey, long time no see
Gotta talk F1 again, Max not on the grid next year would be a bummer

On topic.
Yes, not everything will be usable since it must be verifiable, if not it is useless.
But i take it that they have received enough original material from the locals which are of course not SBU.

a reply to: earthling42

Hey,

I'm not too worried about Max, he has done great, nothing seems to be able to get him from the points.

The pictures and videos provided are still very questionable...

Ukrainian army vehicle



Vehicle behind the BUK in Torrez

a reply to: RogueWave




www.nrc.nl...

a reply to: earthling42

That was the video with which they try to get witnesses.

I heard them today say it wasn't going that well with finding witnesses...how come ?

NOS sure hadn't any trouble finding witnesses for the Russian BUK producer launch location claim.

a reply to: earthling42

Thanks. So they are using the BUK pics that I consider fakes. I'll get back on that.

Anyone interested, I started first today to discuss in an old MH17 thread and put some more information over there...

Link

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, the silence from the West is deafening.

And when the images are released?

If they had such evidence they would have released it.

Why? And give the guilty time to poison the well?

Yes, to protect the guilty.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: DJW001

BUK producer detonates missiles next to pilot’s cockpit in real-life MH17 experiment

The problem With a test like this is that it is a stationary test. The fragment spray would not have patterns like the test show when you have MH17 flying forward at 700-800km/h and a BUK missile traveling towards MH17 at 1500 - 2000km/h.

The BUK could not have detonated where the test show. Do to the the speed of the BUK missile and the forward speed of MH17.
The BUK missile would have had to detonated a good distance in front of MH17 to hit the cocpit With a side spary solution.


The BUK missile would have to detonate so that MH17 can fly into the spray of fragments. That would leave a different pattern on MH17.

I knew th epro russians would be on this thread saying Its a biased report. Thats what is argued all the time in legal issues. If th eother side don tlike th etruth of a objective party then they should not had agreed in th efirst place. I bet you i f it said something else Russia would be heralding th e decision.

originally posted by: yuppa
I knew th epro russians would be on this thread saying Its a biased report. Thats what is argued all the time in legal issues. If th eother side don tlike th etruth of a objective party then they should not had agreed in th efirst place. I bet you i f it said something else Russia would be heralding th e decision.

You are not a pro russian so you support this report.

What is the difference here???

You dont question facts at all, you support the accusation against Russia. Who only provided the missile systems to Ukraine.

a reply to: spy66

Sure, and it seems highly unrealistic to conduct a reconstruction that would match the exact circumstances of the flight. This, however dismissed the theories where the holes were punched by AA guns.

a reply to: RogueWave

No need to go after the forgery of the pictures ...
Just consider how credible is the whole idea of having Russians moving around a self-propelled missile launcher on a trailer, pulled by a volvo truck, without trying to hide the thing under a sheet of rubber or whatever ....

originally posted by: RogueWave
Thanks. So they are using the BUK pics that I consider fakes. I'll get back on that.

Why do you consider them fakes?

Sorry for the one-liner, but it's important to know.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, the silence from the West is deafening.

And when the images are released?

If they had such evidence they would have released it.

Why? And give the guilty time to poison the well?

Yes, to protect the guilty.

Wow. You admit you want to protect the guilty.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: RogueWave

No need to go after the forgery of the pictures ...
Just consider how credible is the whole idea of having Russians moving around a self-propelled missile launcher on a trailer, pulled by a volvo truck, without trying to hide the thing under a sheet of rubber or whatever ....

Yeah, it's almost like they believe they own the joint.

a reply to: spy66

The problem With a test like this is that it is a stationary test. The fragment spray would not have patterns like the test show when you have MH17 flying forward at 700-800km/h and a BUK missile traveling towards MH17 at 1500 - 2000km/h.

Hi explosives detonate at a velocity of thousands of meters per second. At those velocities, the plane and missile might as well be standing still.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I've have one basic rule, take NOS with lots of salt, in fact, i never watch it